Appeal No. 1999-1551
Application No. 08/547,736
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
With regard to claims 11-13, specifying the particular type of digital cordless radio
telephone system (claim 11-DECT; claim 12-WCPE and claim 13-PHS), appellants admit
that Connolly discloses a DECT radio telephone system so it is unclear how the limitations
of claim 11 are being argued by appellants. With regard to claims 12 and 13, appellants’
argument is only that Connolly does not expressly mention a WCPE (Wireless Customer
Premises Equipment) or a PHS (Personal Handyphone System). However, the rejection
is based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 and appellants’ “argument” that the reference does not
expressly mention these types of systems fails to indicate why the use of the invention in
these different types of radio telephone systems would not have been “obvious” in view of
Connolly’s teaching of a DECT system and in view of the artisan’s familiarity with WCPE
and PHS systems.
Accordingly, in view of appellants’ unconvincing argument, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have reviewed appellants’ arguments with regard to independent claim 20 but
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007